Ethical Principles Essay. Social Sciences Assignment.
[NOTE: You MUST answer either #1 or #2 below as one of your essay responses, but do not answer both]
1) Two top CIA operatives have captured an Al Qaeda terrorist suspect and they believe he has detailed knowledge about an immanent attack on the US that will kill thousands of people. One of the operatives is a hardened utilitarian who believes whatever works is right, another is a Kantian who fervently believes in the value of human life and adhering to moral and legal rules, and the third is a social contract theorist who believes society determines rules of right and wrong. The utilitarian is ready to use torture as a means of extracting information from the suspect, while the deontologist is strongly resisting, and the social contract theorist also interjects. What detailed positions would each one likely take on the moral justification of using torture to possible save the lives of thousands of people, and be aware of various assumptions that might be made in this scenario? Be sure your answers reflect a clear definition of each position and an awareness of their differences and respective perspectives on things.
2) The capital punishment debate turns on the principled point of whether or not (1) the state has a right to take a human life and (2) practical considerations about whether or not it is an effective deterrent. Compare and contrast the positions of utilitarianism, deontology, and social contract theory on this complex social and ethical topic. You may want to research the issues a bit, here are some recommended links:
“Criminal Justice: Capital Punishment Focus”
https://www(dot)criminaljusticedegreeschools(dot)com/resources/capital-punishment-focus/
“Arguments For And Against Capital Punishment”
https://www(dot)britannica(dot)com/topic/capital-punishment/Arguments-for-and-against-capital-punishment
“Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments: Should the death penalty be allowed?”
https://deathpenalty(dot)procon(dot)org/top-10-pro-con-arguments/
“The Death Penalty Debate”
https://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=pqbpBYPQPL0
3) Lay out Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha in theory and practice. Describe how it appears in King’s theory and practice, including, specifically, his “I Have a Dream” speech. Is violence ever justified? Answer this question by considering these two links below in relation to one another: the first (Link #1) is exemplary of an ongoing and increasingly vicious and organized attack on rhinos and elephants in Africa, to the point of total extinction (rhinos are projected to go extinct in 2 years, and African elephants in less than 20). The second link (Link #2) is a clip of Bruce Cockburn performing his 1980’s classic, “If I Had a Rocket Launcher.” Though the context of the song comes from the US wars declared against Central American nations throughout the 20th century, but especially during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the early to mid-1980s, it directly applies to the war on rhinos and elephants, often waged by helicopters to directly fire on these animals and/or drop soldiers on the ground to butcher the animals for their highly-marketable horns. It is a visceral response to killing and the true purveyors of violence, but would such as action (using a rocket launcher to protect innocent humans or animals under brutal attack) be legitimate? How and why? To put it another way: if you were on the ground with a rocket launcher you knew how to use, and the poachers were coming in to kill rhinos or elephants, what would you do? Why?
Link #1:
“Elephants Dying in Epic Frenzy as Ivory Fuels Wars and Profit”
https://www(dot)nytimes(dot)com/2012/09/04/world/africa/africas-elephants-are-being-slaughtered-in-poaching-frenzy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Link #2:
Bruce Cockburn, “If I had a Rocket Launcher”
https://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=_AG7g0eCtcI
Lyrics: https://cockburnproject(dot)net/songs&music/iiharl.html
4) Apply the key ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X as two unique and different perspectives on the recent police killing of George Floyd (and too many others) and the resulting social unrest. Which approach do you find more viable today for defending people from police brutality and creating a more peaceful and just society, and why?
5) What is speciesism? How is it analogous to racism and sexism, and other forms discrimination? Why should or should not speciesism also be considered an illegitimate for of discrimination, exploitation, and violence (in its practical effects and logical consequences)?
6) Describe one key argument against animal rights. Describe one key argument for animal rights? Which do you find more persuasive, and why? How, if at all, has consideration of the topic of animal rights made a change in your thinking and life?
7) Describe how, in the case of vivisection, Peter Singer, a utilitarian, and Tom Regan, a deontologist, take very different positions. How do the different positions of utility and welfare and of inherent value and rights lead to different moral outcomes on the issue of whether or not it is morally justified to experiment on animals? If people typically argue that animals lack rights because they do not have reason and language, then do fetuses, small infants, severely “brain damaged,” “senile,” and comatose people also lack rights to their own bodies and lives? If a chimpanzee is more intelligent than a 3- or 4-year-old child, and certainly than an elderly person suffering the last stages of Alzheimer’s disease, why don’t we experiment on them instead of animals? (This essay by Jane Goodall might inspire your thinking: http://www(dot)animal-rights-library(dot)com/texts-m/goodall01.htm.)
8) Using the links provided on your syllabus, compare and contrast the non-anthropocentric ethics of Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson? What contributions do each make to an environmental ethic? How do each alter our narrow anthropocentric notions of “community”? What critical roles do bees and other pollinators play in the larger community of life? Apply some of these lessons of these pioneering thinkers to an ethical proposal to the problem of massive die-off of bees (“colony collapse disorder”) because of the increasing use of pesticides in agriculture, habitat loss, and other factors. You may find these links helpful for research:
“Last year, 40% of honey-bee colonies in the US died. But bees aren't the only insects disappearing in unprecedented numbers”
https://www(dot)businessinsider(dot)com/insects-dying-off-sign-of-6th-mass-extinction-2019-2
“Save the Bees”
https://www(dot)greenpeace(dot)org/usa/sustainable-agriculture/save-the-bees/
“Everything you wanted to know about the bee die-off”
https://revealnews(dot)org/article/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-bee-die-off/
“Colony Collapse Disorder: What Is It, And Why Does It Matter?”
https://pollenity(dot)com/colony-collapse-disorder/
“Colony collapse disorder”
https://www(dot)britannica(dot)com/video/205175/bees
“Colony Collapse: The Mystery of the Missing Bees”
https://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=38Wj4byHML0
9) What are the profound differences between the anthropocentric (and “enlightened anthropocentrism”) and biocentric perspectives? Apply each to an ethical consideration of the problem of climate change and how society ought best to devise a solution. Also, what more socially and politically-oriented approach does social ecologist Murray Bookchin take to resolving serious environmental problems like climate change -- problems that he believes are inherent in the exploitative and grow-or-die nature of capitalism?
Answer THREE AND ONLY THREE OUT OF NINE of the following questions, choosing as you like, but answer all parts of the questions your choose. Note that whatever questions you choose, you MUST answer questions #1 or #2. Write 5-7 double-spaced pages total (not per question), using 12-point font; do not type the questions into your exam, just answer them. Write clear and complete responses, and apply philosophical critical thinking tools. Quote enough from the primary readings from the textbook and syllabus to establish that you have done the reading, but not so much that you are “padding” your response with quotes that are too long. Work the material smoothly into your responses, and cite the reference in an endnote, no particularly formatting style is required. Points will be deducted for failure to use and cite the texts we have read. You may draw from your prior discussion board posting if that is relevant to this exam, but revise and polish your work. If you use secondary sources, be sure to ably paraphrase them, or if you quote them, cite the entire source in an endnote. You may ask for help clarifying the meaning of the questions, but not answering them.
Ethical Principles
Name
Institution
Course
Date
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Question one
An argument between three operatives with different principles about what is good or wrong is likely to result in a disagreement on how to handle a terrorist suspect. Whereas the utilitarian operative believes in the torture of a single terror suspect to save the lives of many that might be killed in the terrorist attack, Kantian operative as well as the social contract theorists are likely to refute the torture position. However, in trying to seek what informs the three's distinctive decision or the reasoning behind their stands, this section seeks to dissect into the three moral principles subscribed to by the individuals.
The first operative is likely to proceed with torture because he reasons from a utilitarian ethical perspective. In utilitarianism, happiness is regarded as the ultimate element of concern for any human being. The utilitarian principle also bases the determination of action as right or wrong on the amount of happiness it brings to the larger society rather than an individual. Therefore, this principle implies that a right or good action is that which results in making several people happy. With such type of reasoning, the utilitarian operative is likely to proceed with the torturing of the terror suspect because he believes that torturing and getting the information required to stop the imminent attack will bring happiness to several people. It is important to note that the utilitarian principle here allows the operative here to take the laws in his hand to cause pain to the one individual in order to make more people happy by saving their lives.
Kantianism, on the other hand, perceives morality as autonomous reasoning where an individual uses the power of reasoning and thinking critically in determining what is right or wrong in a world that he desires to live. Unlike utilitarianism, this principle perceives that an individual's action can be good or bad regardless of its consequences. The Kantian operative decision to refute from torturing the suspect is likely to be influenced by the need to think critically and why the individuals might have engaged in terror suspects since it might be a moral law within an empirical perspective. Kantianism also encourages treating other people from a perspective that they have an intrinsic value rather than a route to attaining the other party's needs, which is more like what the utilitarian operative was doing. A universal law expressed from an empirical perspective is there the main reason why the Kantian operative refutes the suspect's torturing.
Finally, the Social contract ethic asserts that human beings are violent and egocentric by nature. Without a universal law that is guarded by the general societal rule, there would be no peace. This principle implies that the determination of wrong or right action is determined by a set of rules that govern society and that an individual cannot decide independently, as is the case with Kantianism. Out of that reasoning, the third operative who is subscribed to a social contract theory is likely to recommend the formal trial for the suspect regardless of the risk he poses to the general society by not providing information to stop an imminent attack. This is because he believes in the rule of law, which is the universal rule set out to govern society. In conclusion, the utilitarian operative believes in torture because it is likely to bring happiness to most people. The Kantian operative believes in treating the suspect as an individual with intrinsic value. In contrast, the social contract theorist believes in following due process, which is the societal rule of determining an individual's morality.
QUESTION 6
Animal rights have, for many years, been something that has always garnered a lot of controversies. There are quite many dimensions that happen in such a scenario, so much that it becomes even hard to settle on one side. There have been opponents and proponents for animal rights, with each side putting forth quite some serious points to defend their stands. The entire debate revolves around animals' existential nature and the philosophical aspects of their existence as to whether they have a soul, a personality, or not. It is such a notion that has provided the grounds for a very heated debate between the two sides of the divide; those for and those against.
The argument for Animal Rights
The main argument for animal rights is that animals have a moral identity, just like human beings. Animals are creatures just like human beings. They, therefore, possess a soul and persona. They can feel as well as endure pain and suffering. The approach taken in this perspective is the rights-based one and not the utilitarian approach. This is because human beings started failing when they embraced the utilitarian perspective towards animals and viewed animals a...